Deeper than primes

[zooterkin]

It will not change the fact that =(X) ≠ =(~X) under the limitations of two-valued system, where ≠ is non-local w.r.t =(X) or =(~X).

Also without this limitation it will not change the fact that =X ≠ =Y, where ≠ is non-local w.r.t =X or =Y.

What's with the superfluous '=' signs?
X ≠ ~X
No need for the non-local nonsense, either. Not that it is a particularly deep insight.

Comparing something to itself is the minimal term of Researchability, where X is compared to itself by =, where = is non-local w.r.t X.

More nonsense. Have you ever defined 'researchability', or what you learn from comparing something with itself?

You are talking about the level of using the particular case of Two-valued logic.

I am talking about the ontological core of any logic, where True or False are the concepts of the particular case of Two-valued system.

Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the simplest operation in a two-valued logic system, I would suggest you learn to walk before you try to run.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, and this is important: What difference does it make whether negation is "based on an ability to compare" or not? What is the demonstrable consequence of your misguided notion?

Because Negation is exactly the ability to compare between different things, where different things are two or more things.

 

[doronshadmi]

What's with the superfluous '=' signs?
X ≠ ~X
No need for the non-local nonsense, either. Not that it is a particularly deep insight.

Ye, exactly as no need of "good" of the phrase "good morning".

And yes, Non-locality is a deep insight, because it enables us to understand that no amount of segments is an endless (edgeless) straight line.

Have you ever defined 'researchability', or what you learn from comparing something with itself?

That something exits and it is re-searchable.

Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the simplest operation in a two-valued logic system, I would suggest you learn to walk before you try to run.

It is exactly the opposite. First you have to understand the general principle, before you are using a particular case that is based on it.

This is exactly the reason of why Negation is wrongly understood as unary connective because of the limited view of two-valued system, which its users are educated to say "morning" instead of "good-morning".

 

[doronshadmi]

Now back to two-valued logic.

Two-valued logic is exactly two values, where each value is compared with itself by = relation (which means that = is a unary connective) and the two values are compared with each other by ≠ (which means that ≠ is a binary connective).

For example: =T ≠ =F

On top of =T ≠ =F one defines contradiction if = is used as binary connective (For example: =T = =F) or ≠ is used as unary connective (For example: ≠T or ≠F).

The non-local aspect of membership under two-valued logic, is defined as follows:

If the truth values of =included\=excluded are the same, then membership is called non-local w.r.t =included\=excluded.

The local aspect of membership under two-valued logic, is defined as follows:

If the truth values of =included\=excluded are different, then membership is called local w.r.t =included\=excluded.

 

[sympathic]

Ye, exactly as no need of "good" of the phrase "good morning".

You are as alien to the commonly used greetings in English as you are to Mathematical terms.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are as alien to the commonly used greetings in English as you are to Mathematical terms.

You are an alian to the ontology of Mathematical terms.

 

[sympathic]

Again we see that you limit negation only to two values.

Well, in Boolean logic you have only two values. You have been told many times before: you do not get to redefine well established concepts and terms. You may introduce a new term or concept and show that it is more general. For example (from Wikipedia): "In two dimensions, ie. the Euclidean plane, two lines which do not intersect are called parallel. In higher dimensions, two lines that do not intersect may be parallel if they are contained in a plane, or skew if they are not".

Insisting on redefining these terms portraits you as condescending. Actually these attempts of yours are quite pathetic, since it is obvious to everyone except yourself that you actually do not understand the terms you are trying to re-define.

 

[sympathic]

You are an alian to the ontology of Mathematical terms.

Try using a spell checker (Firefox has a built in one). And by the way, I am willing to bet you did not get my post.

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually these attempts of yours are quite pathetic, since it is obvious to everyone except yourself that you actually do not understand the terms you are trying to re-define.

It is quite pathetic to see that you think that = is binary connective and ≠ is unary connective.

And by the way, I am willing to bet you did not get my post.

I am sure that you do not get the ontology of the mathematical science.

 

[dafydd]

You are an alian to the ontology of Mathematical terms.

Ontology does not mean what you think it means.

 

[zooterkin]

it is quite pathetic to see that you think that = is binary connective and ≠ is unary connective.

≠ ≠ ~

 

[doronshadmi]

Ontology does not mean what you think it means.

You are not in a position to say a meaningful thing about this subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

≠ ≠ ~

≠ = ~ because of a very simple reason.

If ~ is unary connective then it compares one an only one value, for example ~X.

Since there is no other value except X then ~X means nothing at all.

 

[ddt]

≠ = ~ because of a very simple reason.

If ~ is unary connective then it compares one an only one value, for example ~X.

Since there is no other value except X then ~X means nothing at all.

Are you going for the record in the number of untrue statements?

Apart from the fact that people have, in vain, tried to explain to you what a unary operator is about - let's for a moment entertain the thought that an operator is about comparing values. When I define the operator ! on the natural numbers:

! X:= (X != 0)

it does compare two values and so it fits your (ill-conceived) notion - and I still have a unary operator.

But I concur that in Doronatics, ~X means nothing at all. It is the only way to be consistent with the rest of that theory.

 

[zooterkin]

≠ = ~ because of a very simple reason.

Which is? You don't think the fact they are different symbols is a clue to them having different meaning?

If ~ is unary connective then it compares one an only one value, for example ~X.

~ doesn't compare anything, it negates.

Since there is no other value except X then ~X means nothing at all.

Oh, my.

 

[dafydd]

You are not in a position to say a meaningful thing about this subject.

You know nothing about me.I don't know which is bigger,your pig-headed arrogance or your ignorance of maths.At least you got the orthography right this time.

 

[doronshadmi]

~ doesn't compare anything, it negates.

Since according to your reasoning ~ is a unary connective, then ~X is exactly nothing.

 

[sympathic]

You are not in a position to say a meaningful thing about this subject.

and why do you think you are?

 

[sympathic]

It is quite pathetic to see that you think that = is binary connective and ≠ is unary connective.


I am sure that you do not get the ontology of the mathematical science.

I take comfort in the fact that I understand posts written in English.

 

[doronshadmi]

! X:= (X != 0)

~X is not about the value of X but about the existence of X.

So if ~ is unary connective then ~X means: nothing.

You still do not get the ontological core of this subject.

Only = is unary connective, that enables the existence of X (=X) as a researchable thing.